Blog – Blood Lions

Stripes, Manes & Myths: Liger Facts

What are ligers?

Ligers are the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger, whereas the offspring of a male tiger and a female lion are called tigons. Male ligers are commonly sterile, but females can be fertile.

Ligers are generally much larger than their parent cat species due to what is called growth dysplasia. Under natural conditions, the male lion carries a growth-promoting gene and the lioness a growth-inhibiting gene, which counteracts the male gene and keeps the off-spring’s growth in check. However, the liger lacks the growth-inhibiting gene, because the female tiger doesn’t carry such a growth-inhibiting gene. Read more HERE.

In the late 1800s/early 1900s, zoos around the world started breeding ligers for exhibition purposes, including Bloemfontein Zoo where many ligers were born. The most famous Bloemfontein liger was called Tokkelos and allegedly weighed around 360-400 kg!

Welfare issues

Breeding ligers can create a myriad of health issues, including neurological defects, sterility, cancer, arthritis, organ failure, and diminished life expectancy. Many ligers are born with (often fatal) birth defects and their abnormal growth rate puts immense stress on their internal organs and skeleton. In addition, ligers often suffer from obesity.

The tiger mother may experience birth complications, due to the unnaturally large size of her cubs, and C-sections are often required. Furthermore, their behaviour is completely different: lions are social animals and tigers are solitary cats, making it difficult for a hybrid to interact with its peers.

Can ligers exist in the wild?

The vast majority of lions and tigers cannot mate in wild, as they are geographically spread across different continents (Africa vs Asia). Hence, lions and tigers do not co-exist in the same habitat and their behavioural differences also prevent them from cohabiting, i.e. lions are social and tigers are solitary cats.

There is a small population of lions in Gir National Park (India) that live in the same protected area as tigers, where theoretically ligers could exist in the wild. However, there is no proof that ligers exist here naturally or have ever existed in the wild on the Indian continent. Even if breeding in the wild could occur, this goes against the natural rule of the survival of the fittest, as it would result in compromised genetics that would make the species less likely to survive.

What is hybridisation and how does it occur?

Hybridisation (or “interbreeding”) means the cross-breeding of individuals from two different species, subspecies, breeds, or varieties. The individuals are generally related (of the same genus) but are genetically different species. Hybridisation results in decreased genetic diversity. Human intervention is the primary cause of hybridisation. The hybridisation of lions and tigers are solely due to accidental or purposeful mating in captivity.

Since most male hybrids are born sterile, and the lineage stops with the offspring. Additionally, offspring that are not sterile would not share breeding traits, geographical ranges, or reproductive characteristics with potential mates in a wild setting. This would only occur in forced captive situations. For all these reasons, captive-bred hybrids have no conservation value.

Hybrids such as ligers are bred in captivity purely for commercial gain and human entertainment.

They have no conservation value. Efforts should instead focus on the conservation of lions and tigers in the wild.

Thousands of predators are exploited for commercial gain in South Africa – not only lions.

According to a Daily Maverick article, South Africa is one of the top 3 suppliers to the global wildlife trade. Despite being legal, loopholes are often exploited, and conservation regulations are bypassed. Between 2013 and 2023, South Africa legally exported more than 16 million live wild animals, including millions of birds and fish, and tens of thousands of reptiles and mammals.

What does this mean for indigenous and exotic predators (other than lions), such as leopards, cheetahs, caracals, servals, and tigers, bred commercially in captivity in South Africa?

How many other predators are bred in captivity in South Africa?

We know that South Africa breeds a significant number of predators commercially, in addition to lions. In 2023, the Ministerial Task Team (MTT) did a national audit of all other predators in captivity, in addition to lions.

South Africa holds at least 2,018 leopards, cheetahs, caracals, servals, and tigers, with the Free State and North West provinces holding the majority of these predators for commercial purposes. But in reality, the numbers are most likely higher since some provinces chose not to provide the MTT with the requested data on the number of captive predators.

The minimum number of tigers, leopards, cheetahs, caracals, and servals held in captivity in South Africa’s commercial captive predators breeding industry in September 2023 and the province with the highest number of the predator. (Source: Ministerial Task Team final report)

How many captive predators are exported from South Africa?

To answer this question, we looked at data from the CITES Trade Database for the period of 2013 to 2023. The data includes only captive or captive-bred predators exported from South Africa dead or alive. The CITES database also provides information on the importing country and the purpose of the export, amongst other information.

Over the 10-years period, South Africa exported 3,536 live and 269 dead predators, mostly as trophies from captive or ”canned” hunts, other than lions. The majority of live exports were caracals and servals, with tiger trophies and skins topping exports of body parts and derivatives.

Number of captive-bred tigers, leopards, cheetahs, caracals, and servals exported from South Africa dead or alive for the period of 2013 to 2023. (Source: CITES Trade Database)

What countries import South African captive-bred predators?

When we looked at the countries that import South Africa’s captive-bred predators, a handful are repeatedly found in the Top 5 importing countries across the five species, namely China, the USA, India, Indonesia, and Thailand.

For tigers, the Top 5 importing countries are China, Vietnam, Thailand, India and Pakistan. Many of these Southeast Asian countries not only have a track record of poor animal welfare, but are also among the top consumer countries of lion and tiger products for traditional medicinal purposes, like tiger and lion bone wine.

Top 5 importing countries of captive-bred tigers, leopards, cheetahs, caracals, and servals from South Africa, dead or alive, for the period of 2013 to 2023. (Source: CITES Trade Database)

It’s legal, but what about animal welfare?

Recently, we looked at animal sentience and its link to animal welfare and well-being. We interrogated how animal welfare is compromised for lions throughout their captive lifecycle, from birth to death. All of this not only applies to lions in captivity but to all other captive predators, especially tigers, who have a very similar captive lifecycle to lions in South Africa.

In addition, the live export of predators raises even further animal well-being concerns. Considerations include the physical and mental implications of being crated for extended periods during transport, the time spent in quarantine, and the conditions of the quarantine facilities. How many animals die during the transportation process is something that CITES does not monitor.

Despite CITES’ mandate to regulate the legal trade of wildlife, they do not monitor what actually happens to these predators once they arrive at their destination. What is the real destiny of a tiger that is listed on the CITES database as exported for zoological purposes to Vietnam? Will it end up in a zoo and under what conditions or is it killed in a backstreet abattoir for its bones, teeth, claws, skin and meat?

Stay tuned as we delve into some of these animal welfare and well-being issues for the often overlooked captive-bred predators in South Africa over the next few weeks.

Play

What does science tell us about depression in animals?

What does science tell us about depression in animals?

While many stakeholders in the commercial wildlife industry believe that animals respond to their environments based on instincts alone, science has demonstrated that animals can experience depression-like behaviours. This information is not new as an early (and highly unethical) study conducted in the late 1960s by Martin Seligman, an American psychologist, showed that dogs subjected to unavoidable electrical shocks gave up trying to escape their environments after repeated exposure. The phenomenon was termed ‘learned helplessness’ and became an important model for understanding depression in humans and animals.

What does ‘learned helplessness’ mean?

‘Learned helplessness’ occurs when an animal is repeatedly exposed to stressful situations outside of their control. Eventually these animals cease trying to escape their situations. Sadly, even when escape from long-term and repeated exposure to a stressful situation eventually stops, animals experiencing ‘learned helplessness’ may not even attempt to escape.

How does this relate to depression in animals?

Although Seligman’s study was extremely cruel and unethical, the concept of ‘learned helplessness’ became an important model for understanding the behavioural responses of people (and animals) to depression. It’s a powerful indication that chronic, uncontrollable stressful situations can lead to severe and lasting behavioural and neurochemical changes.

‘Learned helplessness’ can be seen in passive behaviour, a lack of motivation, and feelings of pessimism that things will never change for the better. In animals, scientists have found that those who display signs of ‘learned helplessness’ even have altered brain chemistry and behaviours similar to people experiencing depression.

Do animals in captivity experience depression and learned helplessness?

Science shows that wild animals kept in captivity can experience severe environmental deprivation, a lack of control, and long-term exposure to stress, all of which can lead to depression-like behaviours associated with ‘learned helplessness’, such as the following:

Animals showing signs of depression actually mirror what we see in humans experiencing depression, including neurochemical changes in serotonin (implicated in depression) and cortisol (the stress hormone), and neurological changes in brain function and structure.

What does depression look like in captive animals?

The general public often miss the signs of depression in animals kept in captivity, but the following are strong indicators that an animal is experiencing chronic stress and ‘learned helplessness’:

Animals kept in captivity show these behaviours because captive environments do not provide mental and physical stimulation, they feel isolated from members of their own species, and because they simply cannot escape their stressful environments.

What does this mean for the welfare of predators kept in captivity?

Captive facilities are by their very nature artificial environments that confine and restrict an animal’s ability to engage in natural behaviours. For predators, like lions and tigers, one of their most inherent behaviours – hunting – is impeded. They are robbed of their ability to roam their territories, hunt prey, and socialise with their own species in ways that are natural to them. Predators kept in captivity often exhibit signs that their environments are harming their well-being and quality of life. By supporting commercial captive facilities, we are failing to genuinely consider wild animals’ quality of life. Even if overt cruelty and neglect is not occuring in a commercial captive facility, captive predators quietly endure stressful and inadequate conditions from birth to death. One or two negative conditions may not feel harmful to the animal’s overall welfare state, but the cumulative impact over its entire life can turn into serious depression and severely affect a captive animal’s quality of life.

Is animal welfare compromised throughout a captive lion’s life – from birth to death?

So far in this campaign, we have been looking at animal sentience and how it underpins the way we understand welfare, and how South Africa’s legislation deals with this.

In our first Animal Sentience blog, we established that many animals, including predators like lions, are sentient beings and therefore experience a range of feelings, including pleasure, warmth, joy, comfort, excitement, cold, pain, anxiety, distress, boredom, hunger, thirst etc.

By recognising animal sentience, we highlight the importance of the physical and mental welfare and well-being of animals – terms that more or less mean the same thing. The responsibility for the welfare and well-being of any wild animal in captivity falls squarely onto the owner or caretaker of those animals.

It is important to recognise that many wild animals in captivity cannot fulfill their natural needs, as they would in the wild. For example, predators’ prime survival strategy – hunting – is a large part of their natural makeup that they are not able to perform in captivity.

How do we assess animal welfare and well-being?

To assess the state of an animal’s welfare, the internationally recognised Five Domains Model is often used. This model looks at all aspects of an animal’s functioning – their nutrition, environment, physical health, behaviour, and how all four come together to shape an animal’s mental state.

What does this mean for South Africa’s commercial captive lion industry?

South Africa’s commercial captive lion industry is widely accused, including by the NSPCA, High-Level Panel and Ministerial Task Team, of lacking adherence to appropriate welfare standards. Over the years, the media has covered multiple stories of severe animal cruelty and neglect of predators and other wild animals kept in captivity facilities for mostly commercial purposes.

So much necessary attention has been given to these cases of severe animal cruelty and neglect, but is animal welfare compromised in a more systemic way across this exploitative industry?

Are captive facilities, including predator parks and self-proclaimed sanctuaries, also compromising animal welfare and well-being in less obvious ways?

For these questions to be answered, we will use the Five Domains Model to delve into animal welfare and well-being across the many stages of lions’ captive lives by unraveling the complex needs of these wild predators in captivity, and the many ways in which owners fail to provide for those needs.

Lifecycle of a Captive Lion.

What are the welfare implications of removing lion cubs prematurely from their mother?

Lion cubs are routinely removed from their mothers from hours to days after birth, to be bottle-fed and hand-reared by paying volunteers and visitors, who are inexperienced and unqualified animal caretakers. The cubs are fed cow’s milk or milk replacers lacking essential nutrients, vitamins and antibodies.

Cubs are generally kept in unsuitable, small and barren enclosures with other cubs of similar ages and sometimes even in mixed species-groups (like lions and tigers together), in the absence of adults of their own kind and the love and safety of their mother.

These adverse physical conditions lead to feelings of pain, sickness, weakness, nausea, discomfort, fear, anxiety, panic, insecurity, confusion, loneliness and even depression, which in turn severely compromises their overall quality of life.

For example, malnutrition and malnourishment as a result of inadequate milk substitutes can cause severe developmental issues such as rickets, deformed spines, weak immunity to diseases, and stomach problems. These formulas are typically higher in sugar content than the mother’s milk would be, which can cause poor eyesight. On top of all this, volunteers and paying visitors don’t adhere to strict hygiene protocols and appropriate feeding which can cause diarrhea and dehydration in the cubs.

Not only is the food inadequate, but bottle feeding by those who are inexperienced and unqualified means that cubs are at risk of gulping air or too much milk, leading to aspiration pneumonia, colic, and pain. Being handled after feeding means cubs can vomit, and even inhale it back in when fed in the incorrect position.

Mother lions provide essential physical protection even in the form of bodily heat. Newborn lions are not able to thermoregulate and are at risk of being too cold or too hot, especially when exposed to artificial heat lamps. Just like many of us may have seen in very young puppies and kittens, mothers need to stimulate infants to urinate and defecate. Without this done correctly, cubs may experience urinary blockages, constipation and gut impaction, all of which can lead to death.

Cubs stay with their prides until the age of two years so they can learn everything they need to survive in the wild. In captivity, especially with cubs being removed from their mothers they often cannot even get enough sleep, especially the beneficial kind known as REM sleep (or Rapid Eye Movement that occurs in deep sleep). Frequent handling and a lack of sleep stunts body growth and mental development.

What are the welfare implications of petting a lion cub?

Inexperienced and unqualified visitors and volunteers pay for the experience of bottle-feeding so-called “orphaned” lion cubs. They are handled by visitors for up to eight hours per day, during a time when they should be playing with their siblings and mother, resting and sleeping. They are often kept in inappropriate, barren and noisy petting enclosures with extreme restricted choices.

These adverse physical conditions lead to feelings of malaise, exhaustion, physical weakness, poor physical development, fear, anxiety, panic, insecurity, confusion, loneliness, anger and even depression. These negative implications on their mental state severely compromises their overall quality of life.

Once cubs are separated from their mother and moved into cub petting enclosures, their barren environments do not provide opportunities for them to thrive. The lack of age-appropriate movement results in poor muscle development and coordination. Cuddling cubs may seem innocent, but at this stage of their lives, their bones are soft and unfused, heightening the risk of bone fractures through being poorly handled or accidentally dropped, especially when human children are allowed to handle cubs. Think about a lioness carrying her cub in the wild – only slightly off the ground and held carefully by the scruffs of their necks. Visitors and volunteers may turn cubs on their backs, pick them up high off the ground, and hold them in ways that are frightening.

Without the pride’s dynamics, cubs grow up without an understanding of species-appropriate behaviour. Some cubs may become scared and withdrawn while others might become aggressive and dominate more submissive cubs.

What is the most responsible photo you can take?
The one of a cub you didn’t touch.
The one of a cub lying safely beside its mother, where it belongs in the wild.

What are the welfare implications of speeding breeding lions in captivity?

To meet the demand for a continuous supply of lion cubs entering the commercial wildlife industry means that breeders ensure the lionesses produce as many offspring as possible in order to optimise their income. These females are used as breeding machines in a process that is often referred to as speed breeding.

Speed breeding essentially means that every time a lioness has a litter, her cubs are pulled away only hours to days after birth. This ensures that the lioness goes back into oestrus far earlier than she would in the wild and can become pregnant again within weeks. Through speed breeding a captive lioness can have up to four to five times more litters in her lifetime compared to a lioness under natural conditions.

However, the impact of such frequent pregnancies and giving birth has serious consequences for the lioness’ health. Her physical condition will deteriorate and her mental well-being will suffer due to her body going through the stress of pregnancy and the emotional trauma of her cubs being removed from her again and again.

Added to the physical stress of pregnancy, captive lions are often fed inadequate diets of broiler chickens, supplemented by some beef, horse or donkey meat when available. Chicken is a non-red meat that lacks essential vitamins, minerals and protein to sustain the mother and her unborn cubs during these repeated pregnancies.

The mother’s health is further impacted by hormonal imbalances from not being able to nurse her cubs and the damage to her reproductive system due to the unnatural high number of pregnancies. The physical effects, pain and discomfort all take an enormous mental toll on lionesses, leading to fear, anxiety and learned helplessness, or depression.

What are the welfare implications of slaughter and “canned” hunting?

As we have seen in the above welfare implications of captive lions, by the time lions enter the stage in their lifecycle of slaughter or “canned” hunting, they have already suffered years of captivity in often substandard conditions impacting on their welfare and well-being.

Slaughter

Since 2019, the international export of lion skeletons is no longer legal, as the Government has not set a CITES annual quota for lion bones. However, captive-bred lions are still killed for their bones, body parts and derivatives and therefore their physical appearance is of no significance. Many of these lions are underfed and suffer from malnutrition for considerable parts of their lives.

Just before slaughter these lions have been known to be kept in small crates without water and food for more than two days, left waiting to be killed. These lions suffer from thirst, hunger, anxiety and even panic. The slaughter itself happens generally by shooting the lions through the ear without any kind of sedation in order to cause the least damage to the skeleton. This can cause the lions to feel extreme fear and panic, and excruciating pain.

“Canned” or captive hunting

Captive lions are often bred specifically to be hunted under captive or “canned” conditions. Since trophy hunters target aesthetically pleasing and large animals, lions destined for such hunts are bred for characteristically large manes, their size, and even colour, in the case of white lions. Their physical appearance is of utmost importance to hunters, so breeders may provide better care to ensure the animals appear to be in good physical health.

However, even if lions going into “canned” hunts are fed and kept in better condition than those bred for bones and parts, their deaths are often cruel and prolonged. In the Limpopo and North West provinces, legislation allows for lions to be released only 24 to 96 hours prior to a hunt taking place. These lions are released into slightly larger enclosures and then pursued from a vehicle, something captive lions have learnt to associate with feeding time. Footage has demonstrated on several occasions that hunters engaging in “canned” hunts are often less skilled and physically able, resulting in wounded animals that need to be shot multiple times to kill them. More disturbingly, lions used for “canned” hunting have no means of escape and other examples of footage have shown callous behaviour in which hunters have pursued lions in trees and burrows. Lions being pursued by hunters in this manner experience not only an excruciating death, but feel immense panic and fear leading up to their death.

Animal Welfare – #TheyFeelToo

Animal Welfare – Why Should We Care?

In our animal sentience blog, we looked among others at how recognition of animal sentience has created a radical shift, not only in the way we view the moral status of animals, but also how we provide for and ensure their welfare and well-being.

What is Animal Welfare and Well-Being?

According to the World Organisation for Animal Health, animal welfare means “the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies”. It generally refers to issues like humane treatment, standards of care that an animal receives as well as the conditions in which it lives.

Animal well-being takes animal welfare one step further and considers the overall state of an animal’s mind and body, including the physiological, behavioural and emotional aspects.

Animal well-being doesn’t just ensure the absence of animal suffering, it creates the right circumstances for non-human animals to thrive.

In South Africa’s environmental legislation, animal well-being is defined as “the holistic circumstances and conditions of an animal, which are conducive to its physical, physiological and mental health and quality of life, including the ability to cope with its environment”.

How do we Assess an Animal’s Quality of Life?

The recognition of animal sentience and welfare are relatively new and with that our human attitudes towards the treatment of animals have changed over the last 30 years or so.

Whereas for example South Africa’s Animals Protection Act of 1962 still seeks to prevent cruelty to animals, the more modern animal welfare approach aims to provide animals with a quality of life.

The Five Domains Model is a globally accepted model for animal welfare assessment based on sound scientific evidence, considering five key areas: four functional domains (nutrition, physical environment, health, and behavioural interactions) and a fifth domain of the animal’s mental state.

Domain 1 – Nutrition focuses on ensuring the animal has access to sufficient, species-appropriate, and balanced food and water to meet their needs.
Domain 2 – Environment underlines the need to provide a safe and comfortable environment that allows animals to thrive, including appropriate temperature, shelter, space, and the absence of external stresses.
Domain 3 – Health focuses on preventing and treating diseases and injuries, ensuring animals are in good physical condition and free from pain and discomfort.
Domain 4 – Behaviour ensures that animals are free to express their natural behaviours, including social interactions, exploration, and other species-typical activities.
Domain 5 – Mental State considers the animal’s subjective experiences, including emotions and feelings like thirst, hunger, anxiety, fear, pain, distress and is closely linked to the four functional domains. The mental domain aims to create positive mental states while avoiding the negative ones.

How do the Functional Domains Impact on the Mental State of an Animal?

The four functional domains focus on conditions that create either negative or positive experiences and they all contribute to the animal’s mental state. All of these are ultimately essential for the survival and well-being of the animal.

Nutrition: When an animal has no water, it will feel thirsty. It has no food or too little, it will feel hungry. When a lion cub is given milk replacers, it may feel weak or unwell. If they have a lack of variety in food or presented in an unimaginative way, the animal will feel bored.

Remember, a captive wild animal can not go in search of water and captive predators are unable to hunt for food.

Environment: When an animal does not have enough space to move around, it will feel stiff. If they have insufficient shelter from the elements, it will feel hot, or cold, or wet, and unwell as a result. If prey and predator species are housed next to each other, the prey animal will feel anxiety and fear.

Health: When an injury goes untreated, the animal will feel pain, maybe even nausea or dizziness. If it is ill, it could feel weak and unwell.

Behaviour: The behavioural domain has three components:

Interaction with the environment.
Interaction with other animals.
Interaction with humans.

For example, if a predator lives in a barren enclosure with no enrichment, it will feel bored and helpless. It could even become depressed. If a social animal like a lion lives in solitary confinement, it will feel lonely and frustrated and may become depressed. If an animal is treated in a cruel or callous manner, it can be fearful or withdrawn, and may attack out of fear.

Ensuring an appropriate level of animal welfare and well-being is not only an ethical matter. For example, preventing the spread of disease creates a better quality of life for animals and reduces public human health risks at the same time. Treating animals with respect also fosters empathy and compassion in people, which in turn contributes to positive mental health and social well-being in our society.

What do the experts have to say?

Play

I want to see a big cat up close, but should I?

How can we tell if a captive facility is one that we should support or avoid? With so many predator parks calling themselves sanctuaries or claiming to rescue their animals, how can we be certain that the facility is ethical or not?

South Africa has close to 400 captive predator parks, most of which are purely commercial, or at a minimum designed to earn a profit from their animals. This has resulted in an rampant industry that keeps approximately 8,000 lions, 600+ tigers, 500 cheetahs, 300 leopards, and 1,000s of other predators all in captivity.

To help you better understand what unethical and profit-driven predator parks look like, read on to learn more about the captive Red Flags.

Animal Sentience – #TheyFeelToo

On a regular basis people with stakes in the wildlife industry argue that animals operate purely based on instincts and survival mechanisms and do not have “emotions or morals as humans do”. They claim that projecting feelings onto wild animals in particular distorts our view of their behaviour, which in turn can hinder effective conservation efforts or appropriate care.

Do non-human animals operate solely on instinct, on fight or flight response and other survival mechanisms or can we attribute more human-like capabilities to animals?

Do they feel too?

For those questions we turn to science and investigate the phenomenon of animal sentience.

What is Animal Sentience?

When people speak of animal sentience or of sentient beings, they generally refer to the capacity of an animal to have subjective experiences.

But what does that actually mean?

The word sentience comes from the Latin word sentire which means to feel. When we hone in on this notion of animal sentience and their ability to have subjective experiences, we identify that these can be good or bad feelings, such as pleasure, warmth, joy, comfort, excitement, pain, anxiety, distress, boredom, hunger, and thirst. For social species like lions, this includes the ability to form social bonds.

After a long history of instilling the notion that animals have no cognisance and therefore feel no pain or experience no suffering, the 18th Century English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, said “the question is not Can they reason? or Can they talk? but Can they suffer?”

This started a long lasting ethics debate amongst philosophers and other intellectuals wrestling with the concept of animals having feelings. A modern day philosopher, Peter Singer, defined sentience in 1979 as “the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness”.

Fast forward 40 years and animal welfare science and bioethics pioneer, Emeritus Professor David J. Mellor, describes sentience as the capacity of animals to consciously perceive by the senses and to consciously feel or experience subjectively. The capacity of animals to experience feelings and emotions includes both positive and negative sensations.

Which Non-Human Animals are Sentient?

There are three criteria generally used in recognising whether or not an animal is sentient: behavioural, evolutionary, and physiological.

In 2012, the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness reached a scientific consensus that humans are not the only sentient beings. A body of evidence was developing showing that other non‐human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, like octopuses possess neurological substrates complex enough to support conscious experiences.

Scientists are still not in agreement when it comes to the sentience of fish and invertebrates. There is evidence that some fish for example can experience pain and thus sentience.

There are also ongoing debates around the sentience of insects. Insects and in particular bees have shown surprisingly complex behaviour and cognitive abilities and some scientists argue that they are capable of subjective experiences.

Is Animal Sentience Anthropomorphism?

Unfortunately, non-human animals don’t speak our language and are thus unable to convey their feelings coherently to us. However, that does not automatically make animal sentience anthropomorphism, which is to attribute human thoughts, feelings, motivations, and behaviours to non-human animals.

Animal sentience is a phenomenon that can be studied and understood through scientific observations and experiments to more comprehensively understand animal behaviour and emotions based on evidence, rather than solely relying on human projections.

Why is it Important to Recognise Animal Sentience?

The recognition of animal sentience over the last three decades has created a radical shift not only in the way we view the moral status of animals, but also how we provide for and ensure their welfare and well-being. Recognising animal sentience is crucial for animal welfare, as it underscores the importance of considering not only the physical but also the mental well-being of non-human animals.

With this recognition comes a need to move beyond simply ensuring the absence of animal suffering and move towards securing an ability for non-human beings to thrive.

Sanctuary vs Captive Facility: Key differences you need to know

What comes to mind when we use the term ‘captive facility’? What about the word ‘sanctuary’? It’s likely that two vastly different images of the animals in these places appeared in your mind when you read those words.

A captive facility immediately brings to mind animals in cages and small enclosures, substandard care, and a general sense of lacking well-being. A sanctuary elicits thoughts of care, compassion, a love for the animals.

But, does calling a captive facility a sanctuary make it more ethical?

It’s not surprising that it has become confusing for tourists and visitors to understand the difference between a sanctuary and commercial captive facility, or when facility owners themselves blur the distinction between what is ethical and unethical.

In South Africa, a facility may call themselves a sanctuary without having to actually comply with international sanctuary standards. In essence, a zoo, petting facility, or even a breeding facility, might choose to add ‘sanctuary’ to their name, dubiously making the public believe they are operating as a rescue or place of refuge for abandoned, abused, or neglected animals.

According to NEMBA, a sanctuary is considered a facility that provides permanent care to threatened or protected species, like for example lions, that could not sustain themselves in the wild. However this definition is far too broad and does not encompass a no breeding, no interaction or no trade policies, higher standards of care, including living conditions, veterinary care, and other examples that improve an animal’s quality of life. This loophole allows commercial facilities operating for profit to call themselves sanctuaries even though they are breeding, are still buying and selling animals and the animals are used for entertainment purposes.

The truth, unfortunately, is that more often than not, these facilities are operating for commercial gain under the guise of rescuing and homing the animals in their care. The reality is that in South Africa we only have a handful of genuine sanctuaries who operate purely for the care of their animals. In these sanctuaries, the animals are not bought and sold; there is no breeding; no interaction; the animals have options to hide from tourist views; and no activities are conducted that negatively impact the well-being of the animals.

To make this distinction clearer, we need to first look at the non-negotiable criteria to which genuine sanctuaries should adhere:

A genuine sanctuary does not breed with any wildlife: Breeding predators, such as lions, tigers, and other big cats, has long been established by experts as a practice that does not contribute to conservation in the wild. These animals could never be successfully released into functioning ecosystems and would therefore simply be added to the captive life cycle. There are only a few examples of breeding wild animals for genuine, wild conservation purposes.
A genuine sanctuary does not trade in animals: the buying and selling of wild animals between facilities is not allowed as a sanctuary. Unfortunately, many captive facilities claim to have ‘rescued’ their animals, making it vital that visitors question the authenticity of these claims: Where were the animals rescued from? Under what circumstances? Was money exchanged for the animals? Were they bred initially for commercial purposes? Will they have a forever home?
A genuine sanctuary does never allow human-animal interactions: it has been established by welfare experts that human-animal interactions with wild animals is harmful to their well-being. The stress caused by a stream of paying visitors to touch, feed, and cuddle is unnatural and damaging to the animal’s welfare. In addition, once they are too big and dangerous to play with, they are often sold to another facility to become part of the life cycle of a captive lion.
A genuine sanctuary provides a lifelong home for animals: the animals in a sanctuary are often rehomed from abusive and neglectful conditions and given a second chance. They are placed in the biggest possible enclosures that mimic natural conditions, including lots of trees or shrubs, natural hiding spots, water, varied and quality food, etc. Wooden platforms and concrete places to sleep are not natural or adequate by any means. Captive facilities create conditions that to make the viewing of the animals as easy as possible. In many cases, the animals rarely have a chance to retreat, adding further stress to their living conditions. Many captive facilities rely on cheap sources of protein, such as chicken carcasses or donated older meat, to keep costs to a minimum.

So, if a facility calls themselves a sanctuary, what warning signs should we look out for?

Physical / hands-on interactions: hand feeding, petting, and walking are activities sanctuaries would never engage in. Even if only the owner or caretaker interacts with the animals, this is still a sign that people’s interest is prioritised over the animal’s well-being.
Enclosure size and quality: each province has set guidelines regarding the minimum enclosure size for lions and other big cats. This does not mean to say provincial guidelines have the animals’ welfare at heart, but small enclosures that do not allow for freedom of movement are a serious red flag. The cleanliness is also important – are there bones, feathers, and old pieces of meat and faeces lying around? Are the enclosures or cages bare, lacking in trees, climbing opportunities, and natural hiding spots? What is the substrate the animals live on?
Feeding quality: what does the animals’ diet consist of and how often are they fed? Is feeding part of the tourist experience? Do the animals look obese or extremely thin? Is their diet largely unvaried and consists solely of donated dead chickens, this is a major health concern.
Behaviour: snarling, pacing and other repetitive stereotypic behaviours, such as mouthing or chewing at fences/bars, self-mutilation (plucking, biting, etc), swimming in circles, excessive sleeping, and swaying are signs of severe distress.
Health: do the animals have scars and/or injuries, such as cuts and bite wounds, which can be from fighting? Are they surrounded by flies? Do they appear to have missing fur and black patches on their bodies, which could be mange?

Why is this so problematic?

The sad reality is that genuine sanctuaries exist due to the abusive and exploitative conditions in the commercial captive predator industry, including circuses and zoos globally. While genuine sanctuaries do great welfare work for the animals in their care, their existence should not be necessary if wild animals were not kept in captive conditions in the first place and particularly in neglectful and abusive situations.

In addition to the welfare concerns of wild animals in captivity, another reason these blurred lines are so problematic is that it misdirects necessary funds and attention from genuine conservation initiatives.

When well-meaning members of the public donate resources, time, and funds, or just pay entry fees, to commercial captive facilities portraying themselves as sanctuaries, genuine conservation efforts lose out. In the absence of a commercial captive predator industry, more funding can be made available for genuine wildlife conservation on the ground.

It falls upon us to critically and consciously wade through the muddy waters created by captive predator owners and influencers who misdirect our attention through the use of misleading language to pull at the heartstrings of those who unknowingly support illegitimate sanctuaries and conservation efforts.

Do as I say… but not as I do?

There is a worrying trend amongst digital influencers and captive predator owners portraying their close interactions with these animals as “special bonds” and using this bond to justify posting images and videos of their hands-on and unnatural play-time with their animals. At the same time, they tout anti-interaction and anti-captivity messages on those same social media platforms, creating a situation where their actions and messaging are in complete contradiction.

Social media influencers who own captive predators, it would appear, have become entrenched in a charismatic game of convincing followers that they are the privileged few who can interact with “wild animals”, and that what they do is ethical or for conservation purposes, like “saving the species”. Unfortunately, none of these claims are true. Such influencers not only have a duty of care for the animals they keep under their control, but also a social responsibility to use their influence and platforms wisely, which appears to be sorely lacking.

What is animal sentience?

Animal sentience is the ability of animals to feel and experience very similar emotions to humans, such as joy, pleasure, pain and fear. The global scientific community agrees on the notion that an animal has the capacity to feel both positive and negative emotions. Where there is no consensus related to the debate around which animal groups are considered sentient and which are not. For example, do we believe insects are sentient? Scientists generally do agree that all vertebrates belong to the group of sentient beings.

This ought to make us stop for a minute and give special consideration to the thousands of predators bred and kept in captivity for commercial gain in South Africa.

This is vitally important as it affects the way we view animals as sentient beings, in so far as changing the moral status of animals, and how we can provide for and should ensure their welfare and well-being.

How does this impact animal welfare?

Predators like lions, cheetahs and tigers are apex predators in the wild and their needs in captivity are extremely difficult to meet. Hunting is simply not an option in captivity despite it being an integral part of their natural behaviour. For social predators, like lions, hunting forms an important aspect of their inherently social natures.

In the National Environmental Management Act (NEMBA) animal well-being is defined as “the holistic circumstances and conditions of an animal, which are conducive to its physical, physiological and mental health and quality of life, including the ability to cope with its environment”. This definition is in line with the internationally recognised Mellor’s Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment, which identifies four functional domains (nutrition, physical environment, health, and behavioural interactions) and a fifth domain of the animal’s mental state.

When we accept the responsibility for a wild animal and keep this animal in captivity, we need to promote and care for both their physical and mental well-being, and ensure that they can display as many of their natural behaviours as possible.
They need to be provided with a diet that meets the needs of the species, for example, how often they are fed, the kind of quality and quantity of the meat they are fed, and how this is presented to stimulate them mentally. Clean fresh water needs to be available at all times.
There is no one size fits all approach for their physical environment or enclosures. Not only is size important, but also the diversity and complexity of the enclosure. For example, lions need different viewpoints, hiding places and vertical spaces such as lookouts, while tigers need water for swimming and bathing. Wild animals also need places to shelter from the elements, whether this is the heat, cold or rain. In addition, the enclosures need to be safe for the animal caretakers.
While in captivity, the owner is also responsible for their health, which needs to be monitored regularly and when necessary a wildlife veterinarian must provide treatment for these captive big cats. Many health issues can be avoided by maintaining hygienic conditions, such as regularly removing any old meat or bones, as well as faeces.

It is clear from the above that it is difficult in a captive environment to meet all of the animal’s needs and natural behaviours and thus it requires careful consideration in terms of providing enrichment. Enrichment can come in many different ways, like a cardboard box filled with straw and faeces from other animals, sensory stimuli like scent trails, or presenting food differently by, for example, hanging meat from a branch. The best kind of enrichment, however, is for social animals to live in small groups of their own kind.

Is play-time with humans enrichment?

This is the point where social media influencers with captive big cats often argue that their interactions with their wild animals is a form of enrichment. However, research has shown that higher cortisol levels were experienced in captive populations of animals, suggesting the animals are experiencing higher-than-normal levels of stress in captivity. Researchers also caution that demonstrations of physical interactions can have negative, unintended consequences that go beyond an individual’s actions alone. Those working with captive predators have a duty of care for their wildlife and are social responsible for the far-reaching consequences of irresponsible and even unethical actions through their social media platforms.

The unintended consequences of such “profound experiences” with captive wildlife can lead to people following influencers wanting to interact with captive wild animals themselves and to become part of the vicious cycle of the captive predator industry. Furthermore, such portrayals run a serious risk of legitimising the exploitation of wild animals for entertainment purposes.

In South Africa alone, we have anywhere between 8,000-12,000 lions and other big carnivores in captivity, many of which are used at some point of their life cycle purely for our entertainment. Interactive activities, such as cub petting and walking with lions, creates an exploitative environment in which animals are coerced into constant human contact and even cruel training methods. Many of these animals are also kept in substandard conditions, leading to animal cruelty and neglect.

With the global demand for exotic pets mushrooming and the commercial captive lion industry still growing in South Africa, it’s more critical than ever that we all reflect on the consequences of our actions, and challenge people who are involved in unethical activities.

The truth is that the best viewing platforms, ponds, and hanging toys cannot and do not fulfil the needs of these complex, sentient beings. Neither can the “special bond” with a human replace the complex social structure with their own kind.

Owners of captive predators, including those who showcase their animals on social media, have a social responsibility to carefully consider how their own conduct impacts not only on the well-being of the animals in their care, but also on the subsequent actions of their followers.

“There’s a certain tragic isolation in believing that humans stand apart in every way from the creatures that surround them, that the rest of creation was shaped exclusively for our use.” (Bekoff, 2005)

Finding common ground between NGOs and traditional health practitioners in South Africa

By Taylor Tench (EIA Senior Wildlife Policy Analyst)

Ceres Kam (EIA Wildlife Campaigner)

Louise de Waal (Blood Lions Campaign Manager)

Stephanie Klarmann (Blood Lions Campaign Coordinator)

“We are the guardians of the environment. Talk to us and involve us if you want to save the wildlife.”

This is the message repeated loud and clear by a leading group of South African traditional health practitioners, or THPs.

Over the course of three days, Blood Lions and the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) engaged in passionate, honest, expansive and, above all, deeply enlightening discussions with 20 senior and new THPs from across five of South Africa’s nine provinces.

Our goals were to start a dialogue with THPs to better understand their practices, learn about their aspirations for, and the challenges facing, traditional medicine in South Africa and explain what we strive to achieve as conservation NGOs to see if and how the conservation and traditional African medicine communities could work together to protect our shared environment.

For thousands of years, traditional medicine has been a cultural, health and spiritual cornerstone for communities across the African continent. THPs come from a wide variety of backgrounds, but all have received “the calling” from their ancestors. THPs utilise plant and animal materials combined with ancestral knowledge systems to address both physical ailments and the spiritual needs of their patients.

Because THPs rely on materials from the natural world, there is an obvious overlap between the goals of the conservation and traditional African medicine sectors when it comes to protecting ecosystems that support healthy populations of animal and plant species.

The THP sector is complex, mostly unregulated and remains poorly understood. It is often subject to misinformed assumptions by outsiders, in particular those associated with the Global North. At times, this has included wildlife conservation organisations concerned about the potential negative impacts of using threatened species in traditional treatments.

Among the many important issues discussed, several key points and themes emerged.

The THPs at November’s roundtable were acutely aware of the major threats to wildlife in South Africa, including the poaching and trafficking of wildlife by organised crime groups. An important concern raised was the difficulty in accessing certain ingredients (known as muthi) in a legal and sustainable way, which in turn is closely linked to issues of equity and ethics when it comes to the use of South Africa’s wildlife. This is especially true when it comes to use by relatively wealthy South Africans and foreign nationals for activities such as game ranching, private reserve ownership, trophy hunting, etcetera, compared to use by and available to indigenous communities.

THPs stressed that while wildlife products are used in traditional African medicine, threatened and/or protected species do not typically constitute a significant proportion of muthi used in common remedies and, when used, are often in very small amounts. They also highlighted that certain wildlife parts – such as bones – can be passed down from one practitioner to another over generations, thereby avoiding the need for new offtake of wildlife. The THPs clearly expressed their view that narratives describing “traditional healers” driving species to extinction are unfounded, unfair and harmful.

Nevertheless, the opaque nature of muthi markets and suppliers – which have emerged in no small part due to restrictions on access and severely reduced agency for THPs when it comes to sustainably and legally acquiring ingredients – is a key challenge for the traditional African medicine and conservation sectors in South Africa.

Many issues raised during the roundtable were complicated, interlinked and dealt with larger political and societal issues in South Africa as a country still grappling with the challenge of creating a fair, transparent, equitable and well-functioning post-apartheid society.

Successful wildlife conservation depends on thriving communities and as such we cannot ignore challenges such as governance, dissonance between traditional and legislative/administrative structures and representation. THPs have often been left out of decision-making processes or, if included, consultation has been treated merely as a box-ticking exercise.

Perhaps the most important point to come from the meeting is that the THPs desire and are ready to take ownership of environmental issues connected to traditional African medicine. Whether that be local grassroots initiatives such as river clean-ups or addressing more challenging issues such as inscrutable muthi supply chains, the THPs who attended the roundtable are eager to do what it takes to more widely establish themselves as respected environmental stewards.

We were inspired by the forthright and productive discussions led by the THPs who attended the roundtable. It is clear that we have a shared interest in protecting the environment for present and future generations and we look forward to continuing to cultivate these relationships.

Our organisations are entering the new year excited about the prospects for future collaboration with THPs to safeguard South Africa’s natural and cultural heritage.